DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Sebastian 2021 ONOCT 106

Date: 2021-09-29

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against

Celin Chengotal Sebastian, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

CELIN CHENGOTAL SEBASTIAN (REGISTRATION #513079)

PANEL: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair

Andrew Glenny

Linda Staudt, OCT

HEARD: September 28, 2021

Charlotte-Anne Malischewski, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Christopher Perri, for Celin Chengotal Sebastian

Erica Richler, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on September 28, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Celin Chengotal Sebastian (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

A. PUBLICATION ban

3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated July 15, 2019, (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that the Celin Chengotal Sebastian is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);¹

(b) she abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(c) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(d) she failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(e) she failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(f) she committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);²

(g) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Celin Chengotal Sebastian is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (the “Board”).

3. The Member taught high school [XXX] as an occasional teacher at [XXX] School in Mississauga, Ontario from February 3, 2017 to June 30, 2017. The Member taught Grade [XXX] as an occasional teacher at [XXX] School [XXX] in Bolton, Ontario from September 7, 2017 to September 19, 2017.

4. At all material times, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] male student at [XXX].

5. At all material times, Student 2 was a Grade [XXX] male student at [XXX].

February 2017 Incidents at [XXX]

6. In February 2017, the Member, frustrated by Student 1’s behaviour, raised a fist at Student 1 and commented “if I could give you one I would but I can’t”. The implication was that the Member wanted to hit Student 1 and would if she was allowed to do so. This was witnessed by several students. This was upsetting to Student 1.

7. On the same day, when the class was being particularly noisy, the Member said to Student 1, “kill me, kill me please”.

8. Also on that date, the Member was dissatisfied with the work completed by students in class. She stated to the class “Even [a student with [XXX]] finished their work” or “Why can [a student with [XXX]] finish and you guys can’t”. In doing so, she embarrassed the student.

9. The Children’s Aid Society investigated these allegations and did not verify any child protection concerns.

September 2017 Incidents at [XXX]

10. While discussing the harmful effects of bullying with her Grade [XXX] students, the Member told her class about a student who had committed suicide after being bullied. This discussion was inappropriate and extremely distressing to the [sic] several of the Member’s students. Some of the students had trouble sleeping and others experienced anxiety following the Member’s comments.

11. The Children’s Aid Society investigated these allegations and found that the allegations were verified and that the students were placed at risk of emotional harm due to the Members actions.

12. On one occasion, Student 2 was not paying attention during the national anthem and was tapping a ruler on his desk. The Member grabbed the ruler from his hand and threw it. This was witnessed by other students in the Members class and was upsetting to Student 2.

13. On several occasions, the Member refused to allow her Grade [XXX] students to drink water after recess despite the fact that the temperature was extremely hot. The Member required her students to wait before refilling their water bottles or getting a drink to avoid disruptions in the classroom after recess.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

14. By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 6-13 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

15. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only] and 1(19).

16. By this document the Member states that:

(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;

(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;

(d) she understands that the Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;

(e) she understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(f) she understands that any agreement between counsel for the College and herself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(g) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

17. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E.23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.

18. In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

6Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, College Counsel requested that the Panel find that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional only (and not disgraceful or dishonourable). College Counsel submitted the Panel’s permission to withdraw the subsection 1(5) allegation was being sought because it was duplicative of the subsection 1(14) allegation. In relation to the narrowing of the subsection 1(18) allegation, College counsel submitted that the conduct set out in the Uncontested Facts could properly be characterized as unprofessional, but not as disgraceful or dishonourable. The Panel granted these requests to withdraw or narrow the allegations set out above.

7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on September 28, 2021, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only] and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8During the hearing, the Member expressed some concerns about proceeding with a plea of no contest. After the Member consulted with her counsel, the Panel conducted a plea inquiry and confirmed that the Member’s plea was given voluntarily and unequivocally. The Panel is satisfied that the Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 6 to 13 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and that she pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. While the Member’s plea does not constitute an admission, the Member acknowledged that the Panel can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct for the purposes of this proceeding. As such, the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member made numerous inappropriate statements toward or in the presence of students and failed to use appropriate classroom management techniques on several occasions.

9The Member’s conduct was upsetting to Student 1 and amounts to verbal abuse contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s statement to Student 1 “if I could give you one I would but I can’t”, especially while raising at fist at him, is unacceptable. Members of the teaching profession must always remain composed and professional in their dealings with students and should never intimidate students. Her other comment to Student 1 to “kill me, kill me please” was also inappropriate. Further, her reference to a student with [XXX] while expressing frustration with a class’ work performance was not respectful.

10The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was, on numerous occasions, psychologically or emotionally abusive to students in her classes, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In particular, the Member: indicated to Student 1 that she wanted to hit him; made the inappropriate statement “kill me, kill me please” to Student 1 when the class became particularly noisy; inappropriately singled out a student with [XXX] in expressing dissatisfaction with the performance of her class at [XXX] and by doing so, caused that particular student to be embarrassed; engaged in an inappropriate discussion about suicide with Grade [XXX] students that resulted in her young and vulnerable students becoming distressed, experiencing anxiety, and being unable to sleep; grabbed a ruler from Student 2’s hand in front of other students and threw it, upsetting Student 2; and, denied her Grade [XXX] students the opportunity to drink water after recess, despite it being extremely hot that day and, in the Panel’s opinion, reasonable to allow students relief from the heat. The Member’s conduct on these occasions negatively impacted her students’ cognitive, emotional, psychological or social development, and therefore constitute psychological or emotional abuse.

11The Member contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by breaching the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession, which are set out in section 32 of the Bylaws of the Ontario College of Teachers. Engaging in verbally and psychologically or emotionally abusive conduct is a clear violation of the trust, respect, and care expected of teachers. The ethical standard of “Care” requires members to demonstrate a commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment, and empathy in practice. The ethical standard of “Respect” requires members to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. The ethical standard of “Trust” forms the basis for teachers’ professional relationships with students, parents, and the public. Conduct that implies wanting to hurt students, or which embarrasses or causes distress to students is not respectful and does not have a positive influence on students. It erodes the trust that students, parents, and the public place in teachers. As such, the Member’s conduct fell below the ethical standards of the teaching profession.

12The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Among other things, teachers are expected to encourage students in the pursuit of learning; maintain proper order and discipline in their classroom; and exemplify values such as justice, humanity and benevolence. Engaging in conduct that is verbally, psychologically or emotionally abusive is never a proper means of classroom management and discipline. Rather than encourage learning, the Member’s classroom management and discipline methods described above created an atmosphere and experience that was discouraging for students. Using threats or grabbing an object out of a student’s hands and throwing it, resorting to sarcastic or inappropriate expressions of frustration, or engaging in actions which embarrass or distress students is not proper role modeling by a teacher for her students.

13The Member contravened subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by engaging in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional. The Member fell short of her professional obligations and failed to demonstrate sound professional judgment by making statements on numerous occasions that were inappropriate for a teacher, and caused students, including Student 1 and 2, to become upset. Her discussion of suicide with Grade [XXX] students show particularly poor judgment as these students were young and impressionable. The discussion should have been tailored to the students’ age and sensitivities but instead caused them extreme distress. Further, the Member’s actions of grabbing and throwing an object from a student’s hand was inappropriate, and denying students the opportunity to get a drink of water on a hot day showed poor judgment. The Member’s actions were therefore unprofessional and contrary to the training teachers receive.

14Finally, the Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s various instances of inappropriate conduct undermined the special position of trust that students, parents, and the public place in teachers, who are entrusted with the safety of children. It therefore undermined the reputation of the teaching profession.

F. PENALTY Decision

15The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on September 28, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty executed by the parties on September 5, 2021 and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario or by videoconference;³

2. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) within 120 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management, communication and boundary issues subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;

(b) within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:

(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

16The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest. The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty falls within a range of acceptable outcomes, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Vanderburg, 2018 ONOCT 43, Ontario College of Teachers v. Thompson, 2017 ONOCT 49, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Knight, 2020 ONOCT 216.

17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the varied nature and numerous instances of her inappropriate conduct. Additionally, the Panel notes the distressing impact the Member’s discussion of suicide had on her young Grade [XXX] students. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest her misconduct. The Statement of Uncontested Facts have saved young witnesses from having to testify, as well as the time and expense of a contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

18The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand. Members must refrain from making verbally abusive and distressing statements to students. Members are responsible for the wellbeing of their students and must do their utmost, at all times, to care for and to encourage them, including allowing students water breaks. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member. The Panel’s decision to order a reprimand will also serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession, reminding teachers that unprofessional conduct like that of the Member’s will not be tolerated.

19The Panel finds that ordering the Member to successfully complete a course of instruction regarding classroom management, communication and boundary issues is appropriate to assist in her rehabilitation. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.

20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at College Counsel’s request.
2. 2Allegation narrowed to unprofessional acts only at College Counsel’s request.
3. 3As the Member did not have access to a webcam, Member’s Counsel requested that the Member appear by audio only. The Member retained a video view of the entire hearing. The Panel granted this request.